Helena Anfossi v. Canadian Dental Hygienists Association, 2012 HRTO 402

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Helena Anfossi Applicant

-and-

Canadian Dental Hygienists Association Respondent

decision

Adjudicator: Ian R. Mackenzie Date: February 27, 2012 Citation: 2012 HRTO 402 Indexed as: Anfossi v. Canadian Dental Hygienists Association

APPEARANCES

Helena Anfossi, Applicant ) Self-represented

Canadian Dental Hygienists Association, ) Ann Wright and Laura Sandold, Respondent ) Representatives

1This is an Application filed under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (the "Code"), alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

2The applicant resigned from her employment at the Canadian Dental Hygienists Association (CDHA) on July 8, 2010 after approximately four weeks of employment. She alleges that she was pressured to resign because prejudicial medical information was provided to the CDHA. She also alleges that "nasty rumours" about her were being spread in the workplace.

3The respondent filed a Response to the Application and denied that it had any knowledge of the applicant's medical information.

4In a Case Assessment Direction (CAD) issued on September 15, 2011, the Tribunal ordered a summary hearing to determine whether this Application should be dismissed on the basis that there is no reasonable prospect that it will succeed. The CAD stated that it appeared that the applicant may be unable to meet her burden to establish discrimination on a balance of probabilities.

5Many of the allegations raised in the Application do not relate to any alleged action of the respondent but relate to an alleged unauthorized disclosure of medical information by a medical professional.

6The applicant is not able to point to evidence to support her view that the respondent used medical information to force her to resign. The applicant has simply alleged that this confidential medical information has been somehow disclosed by a medical professional and must have been brought to the attention of the respondent. At the summary hearing, the respondent also submitted that it had not sought out information about the applicant from any sources. It also submitted that it was not aware of any rumours about the applicant.

7To succeed at this stage of the Application, the applicant must show that there is a reasonable prospect that she would be able to prove, on a balance of probabilities, a link between the respondents' alleged actions and a Code ground: Dabic v. Windsor Police Service, 2010 HRTO 1994. A mere assertion that the respondent must have known her medical history is not sufficient. I find that the applicant has not established the necessary link between the departure from her employment and a prohibited ground of discrimination under the Code.

8Accordingly, the Application is dismissed.